Yes, it's reasonable and therefore would never make it into law. The NRA buys whole politicians. You remember buying action figures? Same principle. They just go into congress or in some state legislature, select a politician from the rack, and then use that politician to kill any potential gun control. Of course I'm being facetious, but it's very close to the truth. While I don't support an outright ban on guns I do think our current, "Got a pulse? You can buy a gun," policy is rather ineffective and stupid.

I belive that it was the only slightly resonable idea there...the bracelets are useless if your incapacitated, and if you have gloves on, you cant have a thumb scan.
only 1% of gun deaths happen to children under 17 due to accedents,[link=]http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html][/link]
every one praticipateing in this debate should read this,
[link=]http://http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf][/link]

Except honestly A_R, if we're talking about "looking good on paper," all those are pretty stupid, and/or are put forth by those who don't have any familiarity with firearms. It's also quite pre-determined... (such as claiming that Lott's study is wrong, but the one that supports its conclusion is correct. Why is Lott's study wrong, but the other one right?)

The only suggestion that really wouldn't bother me personally is the "one gun a month rule." Most firearms are so expensive that really, I'd bet the average person couldn't afford to buy more than one or two guns a year, let alone per month. So this one is more tit-for-tat/ want vs desire. However, the nature of gun regulation is a slippery slope, so I don't see it being created in isolation. However, the one a month rule wouldn't impact the public health concern that the article brought up in the slightest either. And ironically, Canada and the US have similar background check procedures. Checks in Canada instantly go through the CFIS, which is the same as the US, and both have similar disqualifiers, such as being convicted of domestic violence and the like...

The other things, such as using arbitrary labels such as "traffickers," and "erasing" serial numbers, (I'd like to know what is meant by "erasing," considering that serial numbers are etched or wielded on plates into the frames themselves) to calling magazines oversized vs reload times, to saying that the background check should be "improved" without identifying what needs improving- are all pointless.

By the way, "Smart guns" are already proven to be unreliable, just ask the NYC police, who looked into the technology to equip members of its force. The smart gun didn't reliably identify the user and would remain locked, and there were higher rates of misfiring. In essence, the smart gun is a mythical beast that is kept alive as a panacea by those who don't particularly care about how a gun operates.

The gun debate does contain many faces, but I don't think that repeating the tired old "suggestions" like the article did is the way to go. (or maybe the link is just old itself, I didn't look at its date.)

Now you could come into this session of Parliament and say "well what about the percentage of knives used unlawfully then? What about the percentage of fists? Will you ban those too?"

Well, there have been [link=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm]calls[/link] to ban kitchen knives in the UK

I'd point out that a frequent argument in favour of abortion is about legislating what a woman can do with her body, which does link it to the suicide discussion on some level. I'd also highlight that Japan, a country with strict gun laws, has a suicide rate more than double the United States. South Korea, also with strict gun laws, is nearly three times the US rate. Canada has a suicide rate higher than the U.S., and Australia only slightly lower. That makes the suicide issue about far more than just gun availability. I'd also point out that on U.S. statistics for 2001, an elderly person commits suicide every 97 minutes. A person between the ages of 15-24, the younger ages often focused on, dies every 132 minutes, and the suicide rates are higher at earlier ages and so suicide is more common above age 65 than below it. Studies have shown that suicide in the elderly tends to cite wanting to end [link=http://www.a1b2c3.com/suilodge/facovr1a.htm]suffering[/link] (at bottom of that page) rather than the more common themes seen in younger suicides, and a study done in 1988 found that for suicides over 65 years old in men, nearly 80% used a firearm. Some studies have also shown that a lot of suicides via poison in the elderly are considered natural deaths and not investigated but autopsies of 15,000 elderly deaths labeled natural found that about 5% contained enough poison to cause death.
This can either be interpreted in two ways, imo, the first is that this is what happens when there is not a policy that allows for legal medical aid for euthanasia, or simply people making their own choices about end of life. The other is that there is that the suicide rates are a symptom not of the prevalence of guns, but another example of a broken attitude towards mental health, starting with out inability to detect mentally unstable youths that are prone to outward violence and maintaining mental health in the elderly that would allow them to live fuller lives.

[link=http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html]only 1% of gun deaths happen to children under 17 due to accidents[/link]
every one participating in this debate should read this,
[link=http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf]Gun Facts V5.0[/link]

Links Fixed

Fire_Ice_Death said:

See? This is the kind of mentality gun control advocates are fighting against.... Either way the stonewall attitude is a great hindrance to anything being done.

If something logical and realistic is proposed...We'll support it, Really!

I doubt it. Call it prejudiced or not or just a generalization, but from what I've seen any form of 'gun control' tends to make gun nuts soil their diapers. At least the ones that belong to the NRA.

The funny thing about that, The NRA is often criticized for being too mainstream.
Groups like the JPFO and the GOA often "expose" how NRA board members are pro-gun control
[image=http://jpfo.org/images02/handbill-joaquin.jpg]

But then again, people throw the term "N-R-A" around like this one single organization is a giant puppet master that is behind every pro-2nd amendment campaign and action.
People blamed the "N-R-A" for the open carry meetings in Starbucks in California, when they had nothing to do with it.

People blame the "N-R-A" when letter writing campaigns flood offices and phone calls fill up voice mail even though when they had no official stance or statement on an issue.

But FID, doesn't that apply to any topic that any person may feel strongly about? Come on, FID, I've seen you "soil your diapers" and react more strongly over some issues than anyone else in the forum. Does that mean you're always over-reacting with topics that matter to you, or are there no topics that are worth making a connection for? What matters is the basis the behind the discussion, which is what your statement is missing.

Going back to the specific prior post, the suggestions just don't make sense. For example, I'd suggest that the provision to prevent the "erasing of serial numbers" be implemented tomorrow. What does that even mean? Since guns are either made from metal or polymer with a metal plate, any serial number can be grounded down with a metal grinder. It's basic physics-metal on metal contact vs friction. Is that what the author meant? Since removing a serial number is already a federal crime, should gun frames be forged out of diamond? Or the fact that probably 99.9% of the population can't afford to buy more than one gun a month anyway, so hey, let's throw that in as well, and call everyone else "traffickers." A 10 round magazine for a 1911 and it's big bore caliber is a high-cap, but that doesn't matter either, because that's just an arbitrary number that doesn't make sense with regards to other models, which are apparently more "evil" for some reason. In fact, during the so called "assault weapons ban" (which was another dung heap of a law because it simply banned guns on how they looked) magazines were limited to 10 rounds, and murder rates weren't impacted at all. Because murder, as an act, isn't dependent on whether or nor the criminal carries 6 or 10 or 12 bullets. So the entire thing was allowed to fade away as a bad experiment that didn't work, because it didn't.

FID, to borrow a phrase which makes you cringe, you're very much a "no spin kind of guy," and you're known for sniffing out doublespeak like a fart in car. Since those proposals are pointless, then why would you jump on people who point that out? You certainly recognize the difference between hamburger helper and sirloin in other areas, and I couldn't see you getting on board with a bunch of feel good laws that don't really impact anything no matter what the topic is.

Not all firearm proposals or regulations are worthless, just well, the worthless ones are. For example, background checks make sense, and I don't know anyone who suggests unregulated firearms sales. Could the specific background system be improved? I don't know. Personally, waiting periods don't bother me either because they don't really matter, and IL, for example, has a 3 day waiting period for handgun purchases. Which only means that bank robbers in Illinois have to plan 4 days ahead. <--yes, that's a joke, but is it? But to say "hey, let's just ban everything except a "smart gun," kind of misses the point doesn't it?

I think there are common sense gun requirements, but short of banning all guns nothing else would have had an impact in this particular case. And it doesn't really matter because neither side of the debate really cares about deranged loners killing political figures. But when they try it is the most opportune time to try to push for political changes to gun laws because politicians are more worried than usual about getting shot.

I do think different areas can use different laws to some extent. I think Utah lets far too many people get concealed carry permits with really minimal amounts of training. We even had a shooting a mall that killed something like 7 people and we've relaxed the laws even more. We don't even have gun registration. If your gun is used in the commission of a crime they have to trace it through the previous owners.

I'm sorry, but your argument is a bit ridiculous. You are talking about implementing a ban that would affect roughly 45% of the households in the US because of the actions of less than a twentieth of a percent of firearm owners.

There is a very big difference between the sort of argument you would make to ban something on the basis of the behavior of a tiny fraction of the population and the argument you would make to legalize something you anticipate only a tiny fraction of the population would abuse.

If we were talking about something that did not commonly result in death or serious injury, or something whose main function was absolutely required to make society function, I think the argument would be rediculous. If at worse we had to worry about a financial cost of some sort due to destruction of property, I don't think that would be of concern. Likewise, if the cost of a ban in terms of overall deaths was WORSE than not having it, then that would outweigh a concern for a ban.

I am not trying to punish gun owners who legally use and maintain thier firearms. But again, the concern here -- for me -- is net loss of life in one set of conditions versus another. If banning guns has an effect where 30-50 years down the line we are still seeing more deaths for whatever causal reason (direct or indirect), then the guns should stay. If not, the guns should go by whatever means is most optimal.

I have no problem with you counting homicides and accidents, but what is your rational basis for including suicides? Do you have any evidence that shows a causal relationship between the firearms and the attempt to commit suicide? Suicide itself is an extremely complicated issue, and a good sized proportion of people who are in such a mindset would attempt suicide with or without a firearm available, they'd just use a different method.

There is a very good reason for including suicides, and it is for the same reason nets are put under bridges where those who commit suicide are known to leap: many who commit suicide, if not the majority (I don't have the statistics on that) do so on a sudden impulse. This is often brought about by mental illness or temporary factors but what the statistics show is that a significant number that make the decision to commit suicide do not feel the same way a few days later, if not one day or a few hours later. At times it is made in the heat of a moment -- for people with mental illness it is made becuase perhaps thier medication needs of changed and they go into an episode despite sticking to thier current perscription. For others it could be the sudden convergence of extreme circumstances, such as the teen who committed suicide after being taped having homosexual relations by a roommate and having that tape broadcasted over the internet, or various other factors like sudden development of those with gombling issues, plain old finance and mortgage issues, etc.

There are those who commit suicide as the result of a determined decision. But for many, many others who commit suicide by firearm, the suicide would actually not have taken place without the firearm around. Not becuase they just HAD to have a gun to do the deed, but that having the gun made the instant impulse easier to carry out. Instead maybe they had to go look for a bridge to jump off of.... only to find the bridge had a net underneath for just such a purpose... and by then the impulse had passed and they re-decided. Because a gun can offer quick result easily, and offers a more assured end point than to slash ones wrists (and might also be thught to be more painless and quick), it is for that reason I consider suicides to be put in with theother methods of death.

Of course, even including suicides, you are still only talking about numbers on the order of a hundredth of a percent. Where is your statistical evidence to show that any such problems are widespread enough to demand going after 45% of the households in the US?

Again, I'm not going after 45% of households, and I'm not arguing any set o

I am not trying to punish gun owners who legally use and maintain thier firearms. But again, the concern here -- for me -- is net loss of life in one set of conditions versus another. If banning guns has an effect where 30-50 years down the line we are still seeing more deaths for whatever causal reason (direct or indirect), then the guns should stay. If not, the guns should go by whatever means is most optimal.

You may not be trying to penalize gun owners who legally use and maintain their firearms, but that is still what the end result of your policies would be. You cannot restrict the rights of those who are law abiding because an extreme minority abuses their rights. That is unjust, and it will never fly.

Again, about 45% of all households in the US have at least one firearm in the home (be it rifle, shotgun, or handgun). How do you expect to get your proposal implemented when it would be to the clear detriment of such a large portion of the population? That's not even taking into account that it would require a Constitutional amendment, because it is now well established Supreme Court precedent that a categorical ban on firearms (or even just on handguns) is unconstitutional. Your proposal is simply unrealistic and unfeasible. You might as well be proposing that we build a machine that magically converts all firearms into flowers.

Gonk said:

There is a very good reason for including suicides, and it is for the same reason nets are put under bridges where those who commit suicide are known to leap: many who commit suicide, if not the majority (I don't have the statistics on that) do so on a sudden impulse. This is often brought about by mental illness or temporary factors but what the statistics show is that a significant number that make the decision to commit suicide do not feel the same way a few days later, if not one day or a few hours later. At times it is made in the heat of a moment -- for people with mental illness it is made becuase perhaps thier medication needs of changed and they go into an episode despite sticking to thier current perscription. For others it could be the sudden convergence of extreme circumstances, such as the teen who committed suicide after being taped having homosexual relations by a roommate and having that tape broadcasted over the internet, or various other factors like sudden development of those with gombling issues, plain old finance and mortgage issues, etc.

There are those who commit suicide as the result of a determined decision. But for many, many others who commit suicide by firearm, the suicide would actually not have taken place without the firearm around. Not becuase they just HAD to have a gun to do the deed, but that having the gun made the instant impulse easier to carry out. Instead maybe they had to go look for a bridge to jump off of.... only to find the bridge had a net underneath for just such a purpose... and by then the impulse had passed and they re-decided. Because a gun can offer quick result easily, and offers a more assured end point than to slash ones wrists (and might also be thught to be more painless and quick), it is for that reason I consider suicides to be put in with theother methods of death.

Except that not all suicides are impulsive. Many suicides are preceded by prior attempts (which suggests that the individual would keep trying whether the gun was present of not). Your argument might support including some of the suicides, but including all of them is unreasonable. Again, using CDC numbers, in 2007 there were a total of 34598 reported suicides: 6358 of them by poisoning, 8161 by suffocation of one form or another, 17352 using a firearm, and the rest by other means. The mere existence of firearms doesn't make suicide more likely (as Mr44 demonstrated). Banning firearms will do nothing to reduce the impetuous desire to commit suicide in someone so inclined. As in other countries, they will simply seek out another method, whether through household chemicals, hanging, or something else.

A comparison to cars is a red herring. Cars bring broad social and economic utility and, indeed, American society is not built to function without their heavy use.

In the case of handgun ownership in particular, the primary benefit cited to justify them is saving lives through self-defense. However, if statistics show that bringing a loaded handgun into the home is more likely to cause a gun death or injury in that home to the people living in it than to be used successfully to prevent a death or injury in that home caused by a home invasion, then we're talking about an absolute dis-utility in a direct apples-to-apples comparison.

Take as an analogy preventing toddler drownings in toilets that I mentioned above. I decide that it's important to protect my toddler from drowning in the toilet, so I go out and buy a device that creates an impenetrable barrier of razor-sharp spikes around the toilet.

It turns out that, statistically speaking, my toddler is, as the result of me having installed the device, 42 times more likely to be fatally impaled on the razor sharp spikes than to drown in the toilet.

In the case of handgun ownership in particular, the primary benefit cited to justify them is saving lives through self-defense. However, if statistics show that bringing a loaded handgun into the home is more likely to cause a gun death or injury in that home to the people living in it than to be used successfully to prevent a death or injury in that home caused by a home invasion, then we're talking about an absolute dis-utility in a direct apples-to-apples comparison.

Except that you haven't shown a causal relationship between owning a gun and causing the death or injury of someone in the home. If you have an actual source for statistics that show such a causal relationship (instead of just a correlation), then please post it. Otherwise, your claim is unsupported, no matter how much you repeat it.

There is also a niggling point: the best tool for home defense is a shotgun. However, the best tool for personal defense overall is a handgun. The difference is that home defense is limited to within the home only. Personal defense includes while you are outside the home as well.

A properly stored firearm, whether a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, is no danger to anyone, inside or outside the home. A properly carried handgun is no danger to anyone except those who create a threat to someone else.

I don't understand your correlation vs. causation point in this particular instance, Kimball. If a handgun in the home is x times more likely to be the source of an unintentional shooting or domestic homicide/suicide in the home than it is to be the source of a successful self defense incident, how is correlation/causation even an issue? The handgun is either the source of the bullet fired from it, or it isn't.

A properly stored firearm, whether a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, is no danger to anyone, inside or outside the home. A properly carried handgun is no danger to anyone except those who create a threat to someone else.

Again, there's a difference between a system that looks like it should work on paper and the actual day to day implementation of that system. That's why children suffer gunshot wounds even in homes of people who are comfortable around guns and understand their proper use and care.

A comparison to cars is a red herring. Cars bring broad social and economic utility and, indeed, American society is not built to function without their heavy use.

Honestly Jabba, I don't think it is. It's actually a comparison that uses your own criteria. See, that's still the sticking point with me, because you originally framed your argument as a cost-benefit analysis against the chance of your children being killed by a gun you may own, so you choose not to own one. If it was left at that, I personally wouldn't give it another thought, because one of my points all along has been- if you want to own a gun, fine. If not, that's fine too.

But realistically, even in gun owning homes, a child is more likely to die by being allowed to drive the family car, or if younger, drown in the family pool, or be injured by participating in "jr" sports. By a strict cost analysis/ownership ratio, guns are safer than a multitude of other practices. But you give all those other things a pass because you find justifications as to why they need to be around.

(incidentally, it's also my concern over Gonk's post above, which does contain a lot of points. But he uses adjectives like "commonly causes," when in fact, while gun violence gets more sensational attention, it's actually exceedingly uncommon.)

To remain consistent with your original point, I would think that no one under 21 should be allowed to drive a car. Once that's established, we should institute licensing and inspections for privately owned swimming pools. Working our way down the cost analysis list, adding additional protections for guns would probably be 9 or 10 on a list of "the 12 deadliest things that people are worried about.." And then, once those are instituted, we would have no choice but to install restrictions against other social practices like abortion, because I don't think it is consistent to remain focused on something like teenage suicide, but then dismiss the classification of a fetus actually being worth anything or not.

Of course, the country as we know it would be a completely different place.

I don't understand your correlation vs. causation point in this particular instance, Kimball. If a handgun in the home is x times more likely to be the source of an unintentional shooting or domestic homicide/suicide in the home than it is to be the source of a successful self defense incident, how is correlation/causation even an issue? The handgun is either the source of the bullet fired from it, or it isn't.

The correlation/causation issue is because you are outright claiming that by having firearms in the home, they are more likely to be used on family members. You are also claiming that a firearm in the home is less likely to be used for self defense. The two different claims (use on a family member and use for self defense) are logically independent, and any relationship between them is merely correlation.

You haven't established a causative factor in there, and yet you have strongly implied that by bringing a firearm into the home, you place your family at greater risk from each other.

Jabbadabbado said:

A properly stored firearm, whether a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, is no danger to anyone, inside or outside the home. A properly carried handgun is no danger to anyone except those who create a threat to someone else.

Again, there's a difference between a system that looks like it should work on paper and the actual day to day implementation of that system. That's why children suffer gunshot wounds even in homes of people who are comfortable around guns and understand their proper use and care.

The problem here is that you are insisting that the best approach is to get rid of the system, rather than tailor the approach to the specific problems you are identifying.

Firearm owners, on the whole, are incredibly safe. Again, look at the statistics I gave Gonk. Of roughly 80 million firearm owners in 45 million households, there were only 31224 firearm-related fatalities in 2007, or on the order of 0.07% of all firearm owners. When you eliminate intentional suicides and legitimate self defense shootings, and factor in multiple homicides committed with by the same individual/firearm, the number would drop to around 0.02% of all firearm owners.

That's a phenomenally safe group of people. If we implemented your arguments, we would be penalizing tens of millions of firearm owners for the actions of a literal handful of people, an almost infinitesimal portion of the whole.

I just think it comes down to an exchange that was posted in the other thread, by Watto and Shane:

Not saying you shouldn't have dreams, just that maybe it'd be more fruitful if they're realistic. I think it's unrealistic to want freedom of speech, the internet, a privatized media sector, and more civility as well....Of course, it's commendable if individuals strive for more civility. What I'm saying that it's not something that can realistically be expected from all citizens of a whole nation, if no laws are changed... it's a pipe dream.

and the reply:

Agreed. A society can't have liberty without the consequences of that: violence, crime, corruption, etc. The only difference is our society makes these problems overt and on the surface for all to see while other more authorititarian societies keep them under cover. But they still happen.

While that exchange is not as focused as what we're talking about here, I just can't see how you can say "but children die even in homes that practice safety," while ignoring that the exact same idea can be applied to literally hundreds of other practices, because of a concept called free will.

I either disagree with you about the correlation/causation issue, or I still don't understand your point.

If I bring a handgun in the house, I have an x% chance of using it to successfully defend against an intruder, and I have a y% chance of that same gun injuring or killing a family member or friend in an accident, domestic violence, or a suicide attempt. Both those possibilities are present, but depending on which outcome is more likely, I either increase the absolute net safety of my family, or I decrease it by having a handgun in the house.

You claim that there is zero possibility of a handgun accident, domestic homicide or suicide if proper safety precautions are taken. But clearly the possibility is greater than zero.

If the handgun is not in the home at all however, the possibility of that gun being used in an accident, domestic homicide or suicide really is zero, just as the possibility of using it in self defense is zero.

Not one person who justifies gun ownership on the basis of enhancing personal safety for themselves and their family members in the home is being penalized if net safety is increased by non gun possession. Everyone achieves an increase in net safety by not having a gun in the home, and alternatives to gun ownership will do more than gun ownership to enhance safety without adding risk.

44, naturally human safety isn't always the overriding, paramount concern for human activities, particularly if those activities aren't designed first and foremost toward the goal of increasing human safety. But for human activities that are purportedly all about increasing safety, it makes sense to ask the question: does that activity actually increase safety?

A loaded handgun in the home is a net safety loser. It is a bad tool for that job.

Well, those are total amounts, Watto, across different categories. (for example, if one isolates suicide from that figure, would the subject simply find another way, and end up in a different category anyway? We don't know.)

But looking at any total is staggering. In the US, per every 100,000 licensed drivers, 22 people will die. Every year. Simply from driving a car. In Australia, the licensed driver vs fatality rate is even higher, probably because of the more open roadways, I'd imagine? Isn't that staggering?

In the US, 34% of all deaths- more than guns and car crashes combined, were the result of Cardiovascular disease. As I mentioned before, 10 people die every day because of swimming pools, and for every death, 4 people received ER treatment which resulted in other long term/permanent injury. Staggering?

I don't know. Is your post still as staggering as it was intended? Which is what my issue is with Jabba. Why single out guns, as somehow any more or any less staggering than all sorts of other categories, especially if those other categories are going to be ignored for the debate? If the goal is a cost analysis, then firearms are far down the list. If the goal is a different social debate, then what is it?

If I say that I like to take my family downhill skiing because I want a fun, wholesome outdoor activity that poses no risk of injury or death to my family, then you'd be even more aware of how crazy I am than you already are. People like downhill skiing because they get tremendous enjoyment out of pitting their skills against gravity and the interaction of low friction surfaces. They trade away safety for a different kind of benefit.

Just as a loaded handgun in the home is a bad choice of tools for people who claim to be concerned with their family's safety, but a good choice for people who get a thrill out of gun ownership.

44, naturally human safety isn't always the overriding, paramount concern for human activities, particularly if those activities aren't designed first and foremost toward the goal of increasing human safety. But for human activities that are purportedly all about increasing safety, it makes sense to ask the question: does that activity actually increase safety?

I think the answer is that it's not a zero sum game. There's not a cumulative effect of unintentionally related death or anything of the sort. If you practice safe gun handling, then your net chance is going to be close to zero. It's not like it adds up, so by the 8th year of owning a gun, you have a individual 88% chance of being killed by it no matter what you do, or anything of the sort. And in fact, this is where the stats play out, because very few people are actually killed by their guns. (I have an issue with including suicide rates in among this, because if the person purposefully killed themselves, then the gun worked as intended, but that's a different subsection.) You can say that about anything. If you drive recklessly, you're probably going to die, or at least be injured. But that possible consequence isn't part of the very nature of the automobile.

I just don't understand why you so single-mindedly isolate this. On one hand, you say "but life has risks which people assume every day," but then in the same breath, you propose that risk is so intrinsically tied to guns that they aren't worth having, when that's not the case.

Although you did illustrate another phenomenon. Allow me to suggest that a "loaded" gun isn't any more, or any less dangerous than an unloaded one because you handle them the same way. Using the descriptor "loaded gun" is well, a loaded phrase in itself, (pun intended) but practically meaningless. Bullets sitting in a magazine have the same potential energy as those sitting in an ammo box. It's not a bomb that will blow up after 10 minutes. I can take a gun, load it and let it sit on a shelf until it rusts away in 10,000 years, and no one will ever get harmed by it.